Author
Topic: Question? (Read 699 times)

If most (or all, well all I've come across) protestants believe that Catholics aren't real/true Christians, then, while only saying they are in statistical battles with the heathens of the world (those not their particular sect), then would it not be true to say, in a general sense, that Christianity didn't actually exist until the 14th or 15th century?

Also, since Catholics consider Peter to be the first pope, then, could not one assume by the first question that anything said or stated by him in the New Testament is untrue since he wasn't a True Christian, and the writer(s) therefore can be discredited and also be considered heathens and basically put into question the validity of the whole New Testament to begin with?

From a Protestant's point-of-view that Catholics aren't True Christians, of course?

I think we need a longer look at church history to understand where we are today. It seems like there we always protestants and Catholics arguing it out but, in fact, the Reformation didn't happen until the 1520s. Prior to that there was the Roman Church, the Greek Orthodox Church and a few minor ones. The western countries were all Catholic and no one much argued. Luther after all only argued with a few peripheral points with the pope of his time and not, really, with the main doctrine.

Nowadays, with the vast number of Protestant groupings and sects, many of whom have distanced themselves from the others by adopting all sorts of teachings which have no basis at all, many have forgotten the doctrinal unity there was before the Reformation. Take, for example the doctrine pushed by some Protestants that the bible was the word of god, literally, in the original version - you know, the version was can't get hold of! This is not in the tradition of any Christianity prior to its invention and ranks pretty poorly as a doctrine as it means we can never know what the bible should say.

So, sorry, I don't think the question really works.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Right Nam, that 1st 1500 years was just waiting around for the "true" Christians to get their act together. Funny but the Catholics were the ones who wrote and kept the bible alive for those 1500 years. What a break for the Protestants.

If most (or all, well all I've come across) protestants believe that Catholics aren't real/true Christians, then, while only saying they are in statistical battles with the heathens of the world (those not their particular sect), then would it not be true to say, in a general sense, that Christianity didn't actually exist until the 14th or 15th century?

Also, since Catholics consider Peter to be the first pope, then, could not one assume by the first question that anything said or stated by him in the New Testament is untrue since he wasn't a True Christian, and the writer(s) therefore can be discredited and also be considered heathens and basically put into question the validity of the whole New Testament to begin with?

From a Protestant's point-of-view that Catholics aren't True Christians, of course?

-Nam

My take on it, The catholic religion may have been the one true religion, but what happend over 15 centuries was that it slowly changed, could catholics like peter have reflected true christianity and subsequent popes and generation drifted off message far enough to require a split to maintain what was perceived as the true teachings.

in the days of peter, you had small ministries running around the countryside spreading the word, over time it morphed into a business with giant cathedrals and tremendous wealth, no longer were poor preachers roaming the countryside bringing the message to the people, it became a regimented megabusiness with funny hats and cult like chanting.

From paintings I've seen, they've had that funny hat for quite awhile. Anyway, Catholicism in the beginning was a secluded religion, hidden by society, and even after it became legal in the Roman empire which in itself was fading, something had to give it that push--oh yeah, force by war and death. Even during their beginnings they adopted other religious practice to hide.

A true religion wouldn't hide, no matter the cost.

Catholicism was born out of cowardism and fear, they really haven't changed much since then.

If most (or all, well all I've come across) protestants believe that Catholics aren't real/true Christians, then, while only saying they are in statistical battles with the heathens of the world (those not their particular sect), then would it not be true to say, in a general sense, that Christianity didn't actually exist until the 14th or 15th century?

Also, since Catholics consider Peter to be the first pope, then, could not one assume by the first question that anything said or stated by him in the New Testament is untrue since he wasn't a True Christian, and the writer(s) therefore can be discredited and also be considered heathens and basically put into question the validity of the whole New Testament to begin with?

From a Protestant's point-of-view that Catholics aren't True Christians, of course?

-Nam

My take on it, The catholic religion may have been the one true religion, but what happend over 15 centuries was that it slowly changed, could catholics like peter have reflected true christianity and subsequent popes and generation drifted off message far enough to require a split to maintain what was perceived as the true teachings.

in the days of peter, you had small ministries running around the countryside spreading the word, over time it morphed into a business with giant cathedrals and tremendous wealth, no longer were poor preachers roaming the countryside bringing the message to the people, it became a regimented megabusiness with funny hats and cult like chanting.

I didn't say how many times they split, nore whether they were right. Only that their offshoot may well have been a true attempt at maintaining what some felt was the true religion. The fact it split 38,000 more times doesnt mean that the one true religion is not in there.

The catholic church and it's rules of papal infalibility has remained pretty well but does the churches existence really amount to proof of it's legitimacy and faithfulness to the original teachings?

I didn't say how many times they split, nore whether they were right. Only that their offshoot may well have been a true attempt at maintaining what some felt was the true religion. The fact it split 38,000 more times doesnt mean that the one true religion is not in there.

The catholic church and it's rules of papal infalibility has remained pretty well but does the churches existence really amount to proof of it's legitimacy and faithfulness to the original teachings?

Infalibility was not part of Church doctrine until around 1840.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

From what I recall, a great deal of the Church structure...weird hats, bells, candle, and incense style...are from Contanstine's order the preists of Jupiter to convert. So it would be more like there wasn't "real" Christianity from 350 CE to the Protestant Reformation.

but it is all a "no true scottsman" AFAIAC.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

It is funny how Christians will include any person who says "Jesus" when they hit their thumb with a hammer to get the numbers high enough (2 billion) to beat out the Muslims (1.2 billion) and Hindus (1 billion). If it was just the Protestants or the Catholics, they would be way behind the other big two.

As it is, the number of people in the US who are culturally Christian, ie go to church sometimes and celebrate holidays with their families is pretty high--close to 80% in some states. Religious folks love to cite that as evidence that the religion must be true. All those people can't be wrong. (Although of course, they know that the Amish, Catholics, JW's, Mormons, Adventists and Pentacostals are wrong...)

But when we show the statistics on how the most Christian parts of the country have the worse social statistics, how quickly the no-true-Christian argument pops up. More religion is correlated with more divorce, poverty, unemployment, prison sentences and teen pregnancy? It can't be that religion has a negative effect on social policy. Not at all.

You see, all those people who say they are Christian on forms and such, they are not really Christians. Even if they go to church more often than average, check off on all the important beliefs, pray and tithe and teach Sunday school and sing in the choir. Most people who say they are, are not really Christians. Somehow that 80% shrinks down to almost nothing.

And then they turn right around and say that we atheists should just go to church and read the bible and pray, even though we don't believe in it, because god's goodness will eventually rub off on us and we will start to believe and become good.....

Religions are dictatorships, Jesus is not the dictator nor is Biblegod--the one who interprets their scripture about the two are. For Catholics they have the pope for protestants they have the individual person who runs their particular sect; same with any other religion. And what they interpret as the "truth" is what is the truth.

Therefore epidemic's stance that there has to be at least one true religion in there is a fallacy.